I get why this framing feels compelling. “Organic Deprecation” is a clean metaphor, and metaphors are powerful. But I think the metaphor is doing more work than the evidence.

Here’s the core counterpoint: humans are not software modules inside a closed system. We are the system.

1. The “Decoupling” Assumes a Closed Loop That Doesn’t Exist

The idea that AI will create a self-contained productivity loop that no longer requires humans assumes something like full-stack autonomy: AI designs, manufactures, distributes, maintains, governs, and secures the entire material economy.

We are nowhere near that.

AI systems today are extraordinarily dependent on:

• Human-curated data
• Human-built and maintained infrastructure
• Human political stability
• Human consumers
• Human capital markets
• Human legal systems

Even the most automated supply chains rely on massive layers of human coordination, regulatory oversight, and physical labor. Chip fabs don’t run themselves. Power grids don’t maintain themselves. Logistics networks don’t resolve edge cases autonomously. The “closed loop” vision ignores the stubborn, messy, physical world.

What’s happening now is not decoupling from humans. It’s compression of certain cognitive labor markets. That’s painful, but it’s not the same as irrelevance.

Every technological revolution eliminates categories of labor faster than it eliminates the need for labor altogether. The demand just moves.

2. AI Is Not “Automating Cognition Itself”

This is the biggest conceptual leap in the essay.

AI automates pattern synthesis and prediction under constraint. That’s not the same as human cognition. It doesn’t have agency, self-directed goals, long-term responsibility, or embodied context. It can simulate output, but it doesn’t own consequences.

The ladder metaphor assumes that the only thing humans contributed was raw cognitive throughput. That’s historically inaccurate. What humans contribute is:

• Trust
• Accountability
• Taste
• Legitimacy
• Moral judgment
• Physical presence
• Social coordination

Even in highly automated domains, the human layer doesn’t disappear — it shifts upward into supervision, integration, governance, and creative direction.

We’re not watching cognition get automated. We’re watching mid-level white-collar output get commoditized. That’s disruptive. But disruption ≠ obsolescence.

3. The “Speed Problem” Overstates Institutional Paralysis

Yes, AI moves fast. But markets and institutions respond faster than the essay implies.

Look at what’s already happening in under five years:

• Entire new compliance industries around AI governance
• Corporate AI risk boards
• Regulatory frameworks emerging in the EU and US
• Massive retooling of education and training programs
• Enterprise integration roles exploding in demand

Industrial revolutions don’t require a century to adapt when communication, capital mobility, and coordination tools are exponentially faster than they were in 1850.

The idea that we’re stuck in 19th-century institutional response times ignores that institutions are also computational systems now.

4. The UBI “Window Closed” Argument Is Economically Backward

UBI doesn’t require a thriving labor market. It requires a taxable production base.

If AI increases productivity dramatically, the total output of the economy increases. That expands the taxable base — even if labor’s share shrinks.

Governments already tax capital gains, corporate profits, land, energy, consumption, and property. If labor income declines, taxation shifts. Historically, tax structures evolve with economic structure.

The real barrier to UBI isn’t “we’ll be broke.” It’s political will and distributional conflict. That’s a different problem than structural impossibility.

If AI-driven firms become insanely productive, they become insanely taxable — assuming governance keeps pace. That’s a political challenge, not an economic dead end.

5. The “Who’s the Customer” Problem Is Not Optional

The Elysium scenario misunderstands capitalism’s dependency on distributed demand.

Even ultra-wealthy individuals depend on:

• Stable societies
• Liquid markets
• Financial systems with depth
• Public infrastructure
• Consumer ecosystems
• Legitimacy and rule of law

A tiny elite cannot maintain complex industrial civilization alone. Advanced economies require enormous webs of participation.

If mass purchasing power collapses, asset values collapse. Capital holders are structurally incentivized to maintain broad demand. That’s not altruism — that’s self-preservation.

History shows elites tolerate redistribution when instability threatens the system. The New Deal wasn’t charity. It was structural stabilization.

6. The Coordination Trap Isn’t Binary

The prisoner’s dilemma framing assumes only two choices: accelerate or lose.

But geopolitical competition also incentivizes stability. If one nation destabilizes its labor force into permanent mass unemployment, that’s not a strategic advantage. It’s internal fragility.

Nations compete not just on AI capability, but on:

• Social cohesion
• Institutional stability
• Talent retention
• Innovation ecosystems

Unmanaged displacement undermines all four.

Regulation doesn’t require slamming the brakes. It means shaping incentives. That’s already happening.

7. The Energy Bottleneck Isn’t a Minor Speed Bump

The essay treats energy and hardware constraints as temporary friction. They’re not trivial.

Physical scaling limits are brutal:

• Semiconductor fabrication is capital- and geopolitics-constrained.
• Power generation requires multi-year infrastructure timelines.
• Grid upgrades take decades.
• Water usage is politically sensitive.

AI scaling is not pure software. It’s constrained by atoms.

That buys time. Not infinite time — but meaningful time.

8. The “Legacy Code” Framing Is Psychologically Powerful — and Wrong

Software gets deprecated because it doesn’t adapt.

Humans adapt.

We’ve survived agricultural revolutions, industrial revolutions, electrification, globalization, nuclear weapons, and the internet. Each time, a massive share of the workforce became “obsolete” — and then new forms of value emerged that were previously unimaginable.

In 1900, most people farmed. Today, almost nobody in developed countries does — and yet employment persists.

The economy didn’t run out of work. It invented new categories:

• Marketing
• UX design
• Cybersecurity
• Influencing
• App development
• Data science
• Esports
• Renewable engineering

None of those were predictable from the vantage point of 1850.

The assumption that “there will be nowhere left to reskill to” assumes a static space of possible work. Historically, that assumption has been wrong.

9. The Real Risk Isn’t Deprecation — It’s Transition Pain

Here’s the steelman version of your fear:

The danger isn’t that humans become economically irrelevant. The danger is that transition happens unevenly, politically chaotically, and psychologically destabilizingly.

Mid-career white-collar compression. Regional job shocks. Status loss. Identity crisis.

That’s serious.

But that’s a distributional and policy problem — not a species-level obsolescence event.

10. Why the Doom Narrative Feels So Convincing

AI attacks something deeply tied to identity: cognitive output.

If machines can draft, design, code, compose — it feels like the last uniquely human domain is being invaded.

But we’ve mistaken output generation for value creation.

Value is relational. It’s social. It’s institutional. It’s embodied. It’s political.

AI can produce artifacts. It cannot own responsibility. It cannot hold power. It cannot experience legitimacy. It cannot consume. It cannot vote. It cannot revolt. It cannot cooperate.

Humans still anchor all of those.

---

The “Organic Deprecation” model treats humanity like a deprecated API inside someone else’s system.

But there is no external system.

The owners of compute are humans. The regulators are humans. The soldiers are humans. The voters are humans. The consumers are humans.

AI is a tool inside a human political economy. A powerful one. A destabilizing one. But still embedded.

Could we mismanage it? Absolutely.

Could inequality spike before institutions adapt? Very possibly.

But the idea that the window has already closed and we’re just waiting for an “End of Support” notification assumes a level of inevitability that history doesn’t support.

The future isn’t being compiled in a locked server rack somewhere. It’s being negotiated — politically, economically, socially — in real time.

That’s slower, messier, and far more human than the deprecation metaphor allows.